If you believe you did not, then all responsibility for your actions is absolved; you cannot be blamed for any mistakes or appraised for any achievements.
If on the other hand, you believe that you did, then firstly, how and when were these decisions made? And secondly, having purposely made those desicions which shaped and changed you as a person, that must mean you are now necessarily not the person who initially made those decisions. For either you did make those decisions and thereby changed yourself, or you did not and you were thereby not changed.
Thus, you, as a person today, are not responisble for your present self, regardless as to whether you believe you were the impetus behind those decisions which made you who you are, or you were not.
I’d argue that the reasons why I behave the way i do, is down to actions and events which I, personally, had no control over. Such as my genetic make-up, which influnced traits and characterisitcs, such as my temperament, desires, likes and dislikes, motivation etc. The environment within which i was educated and socialised (influenced by factors such as country of residence, parents, relatives, wealth, school, friends, era etc.) also had impetus over such traits and characterisitcs, which I similarly had no control over. Other than nature or nuture (represented above respectively) there are no other controlling elements which led to the perosn I am today. Obviously we have no control over our geneology, and similarly over our education. Even at the moment we become able to influence the way in which we are moulded as people, irreversible decisions have already been taken, which no doubt direct and control all decisions taken in maturity. We cannot escape the chains of birth, nor breeding.
If, however, you do not take that stance, and argue that free will is an aspect of life, and that we are able to rebel against such developmental shackles, you would, seemingly, further argue that you took those decisions that made you who you are now. However, my point is that even with this belief in free will, one must still reside to the fact that the very argument that you free willingly changed yourself, neccessarily means your are no longer the person who made those decisions. If you are no longer the same person, you must either (1) be responsible for actions you took then and not now. Or conversely (2) responsible for actions you take now and not then. Most would hold position (2) as true, and thus absolve themselves (in the present) of the decisions taken by their past selves. Stance (2) is flawed however, becuase if you were not responsible for decisions taken earlier in live, how can you be subsequently held responisble for future actions.
I understand that the bed-bugs that keep bitting me every night are not culpable for what they’re doing since they don’t have a choice in the matter, yet that does not stop me from squishing them. This is obviously because I am constituted in such a way such that squishing them is a necessary effect emanating from me, i.e. causality and hence invariably determinism, so granting that the bed bugs are only a medium between past and future and hence non culpable, I don’t see why they still cannot be held accountable, if as nothing else but a medium. They are a culmination of cause and effect that I, another eminent effect of causality, find undesirable. They are an immanent instance of the culmination of past events which reacts a certain way when in contact another immanent instance of a culmination of past, ie me, mainly through them biting me, and I squishing them. .
if you admit that you were pre-determined in squishing the bugs, it seems to me strange that you would further place responsibility on yourself. If i forced you at gunpoint to squish the bugs, we would no doubt excuse this act, and absolve yourself of responsibility, as you had no choice in the matter. The factors whivh led to you squishing the bug on your supposed ‘own accord’, were factors taken without any control by you. You may have been taught at a young age that bugs were undesirable or disgusting, and that killing them was an accepted action in your society. Your parents may have squished bugs, resulting in you immitating both their actions and the resoning behind them. They may have a particular genetic code, transfered to you, causing you to feel no empathy for bugs, enjoying killing them or finding them particularly annoying. All these events proceeded without any deliberation or control on your behalf. Therefore you cannot be blamed for any subsequent killing of bugs.
I am saying that even in a deterministic paradigm, one can still be held accountable; obviously not for having originated the effect (the killing) but for being a medium that led up to it.
This is odd, I know. It would mean that in a situation where someone killed another by use of a weapon, the weapon would be as culpable as the person.
The interesting thing about this threads argument, is that regardless of wether you believe in determinism or freedom (or somewhere inbetween), you cannot be responsible for who you are.
‘I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.
Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you the last man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"—so asketh the last man and blinketh.’
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue
So then, is the last man (a.k.a. the ultimate man) never free?